can someone tell me when the definition of "prank" changed?

[BlaqueKatt]

to crap like this?

Rowe is accused of signing the wife up for sex ads online, including one she titled "Carmel Valley Freak Show," encouraging visitors to drop by unannounced while her husband is at work, according to court documents. She allegedly told men who responded to the listings to push their way inside the home, and gave men the couple's new address.

a coworker had had a half dressed hysterical neighbor on his porch one night waiting for the cops because her boyfriend "pranked" her....by breaking into her house via the window in the middle of the night, he couldn't understand why she(and the police) didn't find it hilarious. For the record my coworker originally didn't see the issue either.

I keep reading stories where people do something horribly dangerous and call it a "harmless prank". A dribble glass is a "harmless prank", not crap like this.

I can only assume it's because of shows like "punk'd", which I've been called stupid for not finding it hilarious.

[s_stabeler]

oh for the love of all that's holy... while something humiliating and/or scary certainly can be a prank, there are a couple of rather big differences.

1. pranks are lighthearted- in other words, tend to have BOTH parties laughing afterwards. If one side is left pissed off, then it isn't a prank. ( it's why I actually don't agree that James Potter was a prankster in the Harry Potter series, since the only "prank" we see him do was hoisting Snape up by his ankles & laughing at Snape's underwear. If that was typical, he was a bully, pure and simple.)
2. pranks are reversible- once the prank is over, the victim shouldn't have to deal with after-effects. This is one of the areas where the "prank" in the OP falls down- especially with encouraging people to force their way in. POSSIBLY the pretend breakin qualifies- though I'd say the boyfriend should pay to replace the broken window, and it was definitely taken too far if the police were called.
3. non-permanant. any "prank" where someone gets hurt is at the very least gone too far.

[Sarah Valentine]

After reading the link all I can say is she was upset that she didn't get the house so she decided that it was perfectly fine to make the new owners of the house pay for daring to take it away from her, she thought it was right to try to make their lives a living hell. I really seriously hope she gets thrown in jail.

[AccountingDrone]

The force one's way in would end up with the poor unsuspecting guy answering the ad *dead* as I have a 'you break into my house you die' policy.

Sorry peaceniks - being handicapped I have no reasonable expectations of escape or evasion, we have no local cops [Connecticut has state police in a number of barracks studded around the state. Response time in emergency can be 20 minutes or greater] and the number of violent home invasions has increased. I am not going to be a statistic, thanks.

[Nyoibo]

The force one's way in would end up with the poor unsuspecting guy answering the ad *dead* as I have a 'you break into my house you die' policy.

NCIS I think had an episode of that, guy responds to an ad like that, that was set up by someone else and ends up getting shot.

[Jaden]

Inconsiderate people don't think of anybody's feelings beyond their own, basically. They find it funny to laugh at somebody else's distress and don't understand when other people don't do the same, or don't find their own distress funny. It's not cool at all, obviously, and punishing them like you would any other criminal for doing whatever crime they've committed is the way to deal with it.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I'm one of those people who are an ethical prankster. My pranks have rules.

1. Nothing that would cause harm towards another.
2. Nothing that can't be cleaned up in less than half an hour.
3. Nothing that causes permanent damage to anything I'm not willing to replace.
4. Nothing that causes lasting shame on the victim.

Things like teaching the blind girl how to fence with Epee and hold a well choreographed fight where the vice principal could see (she lived across the street from him). That got a serious WTF look on his face.

Other classic examples of ethical pranking is what the Just For Laughs crew do. The disappearing car gag is a stitch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfxVR9hXiIM

Once you start getting physical with the pranks, you're treading on thin ice.

Too many of today's pranksters don't just tread on thin ice, they monster mash through it and give us ethical pranksters a bad name.

[lordlundar]

Sociopaths don't think of anybody's feelings beyond their own, basically. They find it funny to laugh at somebody else's distress and don't understand when other people don't do the same, or don't find their own distress funny. It's not cool at all, obviously, and punishing them like you would any other criminal for doing whatever crime they've committed is the way to deal with it.

Just needed to fix that for you because this goes WELL past "inconsiderate people".

[sophie]

Once it's done with intent to harm it's not a prank. If you give out an addresses who knows who could show up?

And if anyone tried to get in my house they'd be lucky to leave without a knife in their chest.

[Panacea]

1. pranks are lighthearted- in other words, tend to have BOTH parties laughing afterwards. If one side is left pissed off, then it isn't a prank. ( it's why I actually don't agree that James Potter was a prankster in the Harry Potter series, since the only "prank" we see him do was hoisting Snape up by his ankles & laughing at Snape's underwear. If that was typical, he was a bully, pure and simple.)

Thank you! I'm glad to finally find someone who agrees with me on this.

I never liked James Potter after that memory of the way Potter treated Snape. Granted, we only get one side of the picture . . . but still the behavior was inexcusable and it made me feel sorry for Snape.

Of course, maybe that was the hole point; to make Snape relateable as a person.

[Gravekeeper]

Wait, there are people that don't think James Potter was kind of an ass? I thought that was the whole point of that part. >.>

[HYHYBT]

I'm one of those people who are an ethical prankster. My pranks have rules.

1. Nothing that would cause harm towards another.
2. Nothing that can't be cleaned up in less than half an hour.
3. Nothing that causes permanent damage to anything I'm not willing to replace.
4. Nothing that causes lasting shame on the victim.

Would "nothing pulled on people who don't like having pranks pulled on them" be part of #1, a separate entry, or not a consideration?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Thank you! I'm glad to finally find someone who agrees with me on this.

I never liked James Potter after that memory of the way Potter treated Snape. Granted, we only get one side of the picture . . . but still the behavior was inexcusable and it made me feel sorry for Snape.

Of course, maybe that was the hole point; to make Snape relateable as a person.

Agree, too. I've always said that James Potter was a bully, despite various Gryffindor fans stating otherwise. Sorry, but what he did was bullying.

I'd consider a prank doing something harmless like say, covering the house in loo roll or hiding a whoopie cushion under the doormat. Trying to get the wife raped is NOT a prank and this bitch needs to rot in jail.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Would "nothing pulled on people who don't like having pranks pulled on them" be part of #1, a separate entry, or not a consideration?

Generally speaking I only direct my pranks towards my friends who enjoy a good joke. For those I'll nail with the more physical jokes. If I didn't, they'd get me first.

For the rest of the time I prefer the pranks that aren't directed at anyone in particular and leaves the person the option to simply ignore our shenanigans. As in my previous example, the having a sword fight with a blind girl who is holding an epee in one hand and her seeing eye dog and cane in the other.

Also popular are when I'm reading on the bus to and from work. I enjoy making my own dust jackets for my books. Things like "How to Serve Man", "The Idiot's Guide to Necromancy", "Necronomicon for Dummies", "Evil Overlord's Handbook", and many many more. I enjoy the strange looks as the nosy people peer over to see what I'm reading.

Other things I like doing are headbanging while driving with the top down and blaring some Bagpipe Music. They're not directed at anyone and gives people the chance to ignore me if they don't want to be a part of my silliness.

So to answer your question, it's a part of #1. To my mind, harm involves anything that causes discomfort on a physical, mental, or emotional level. If they're part of my "prank the hell out of each other crew", they're game for anything that falls into the 4 rules. If they're not part of the crew, they're just going to see me and my friends doing some strange things and they can choose to try to wrap their brains around it, or simply shrug and ignore us.

[Anthony K. S.]

I never liked James Potter after that memory of the way Potter treated Snape. Granted, we only get one side of the picture . . . but still the behavior was inexcusable and it made me feel sorry for Snape.

Personally, I didn't feel any sympathy for Severus Snape at all when I read that scene.

I agree that James Potter was being a bully and an asshole, but I viewed that incident more as one jackass giving grief to another jackass.

If I could have felt any motivation to sympathize with Snape, it pretty much evaporated when Lily Evans intervened on Snape's behalf, telling Potter off for picking on him ... only to have Snape repay her kindness by saying that he didn't need help from a "Mudblood" like her.

I haven't read Harry Potter in years, but I seem to recall that when Snape was at Hogwart's, he was part of a gang of Slytherins who all became Death-Eaters. It was also stated that part of the reason James Potter disliked Snape was because Snape was "up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts," which definitely doesn't speak well for Snape, either.

My guess is that Snape committed far worse atrocities in his time than anything James Potter ever did. Yes, you can say that Snape did reform after a time, but then again, you could say that about James Potter, too.